TOTAL HOGWASH!! If you are "labor", you get your wages GUARANTEED... no risk, no additional reward. While it can be a good thing for management/ownership to "share the wealth with labor", business owners and entrepreneurs are under no obligation or moral imperative to share their risk gains. Labor is in no way "entitled" to more than their accepted wage. Your philosophy is so HOSED, ON IGNORE!!
Trickle down refers to supply side economics that will provide product at the lowest cost possible in the marketplace. The idea being that if you have the lowest priced products that a market wants, it will help a company become stronger and richer. If workers want to take risks associated with the wealth possible from a successful investment then they can buy company stock.If not then they will get the lowest pay an employee will accept. Any savings a company gains through operations will be transferred to providing a lower cost product. This will benefit the consumer. If this is successful, the CEO's may make large incomes( almost always through stock options). As a percent of corporate income what the top people make is very small so if it seems like a large gap between the top and bottom incomes in a corporation, I find that number irreverent.
Mercor, corporate tax reform has nothing to do with so called, 'trickle down' economics; the case for reform is that you would collect more revenue if you taxed the owners at regular income rates instead of taxing the corps at a compicated and easy to game corporate rate and then taxing the owners again at a dividend rate lower than regular income. The current situation encourages offshore earnings, high corporate leverage (lower operations earnings), reduced dividend payments, increased stock buy-back, the ownership of high dividend stocks in pension and other tax exempt accounts and it discourages domestic investment. If you simply required the corps to pay dividends and taxed the dividends paid to the owners at regular income rates you would get more tax revenue than you do now. On a macro level the change would encourage more activist board of director action to focus coroporations on annual earnings that can be paid out in dividends...it would discourage the use of leverage to reduce taxable income, it would reduce the average cost of capital through more reinvestment of earnings, it would encourage repartiration and domestic investment of foreighn earnings, it would encourage direct foreign invesment in the U.S.. Workers earnings only ever go up when there is real investment that expands production so that the demand for labor increases, the demand for skills increases and productivity increases...there is no other way to increase wages in a sustainable real way...so there is no such thing as 'trickle down'. It is not a real economic policy it is simply a perjorative political slogan...it is not a real thing. Your understanding of 'Supply Side Economics' is also terrible wrong and confused. It has noting to do with the lowest price. Thinking that way simply shows the degree that your thought is trapped inside a demand side box. You imagine that supply side works by lower price and thereby increasing aggregate demand. Your idea about supply side is actually within the demand side paradigm...nonsense. Supply Side Economics properly understood is the economics of production as opposed to the economics of consumption. A supply side economist would look at economic policy in terms of new business formations, business investment in plant and equptment, increase in unit output, market exansion, lower friction in trade, increased productivity, higher hourly wages, a longer work week, more full time employment, increase foreign trade. Policy recomendations would be to lower all the factors of production particularly by lowering the cost of investment. The problem in the U.S. is that we attack the factors of production and we discourage investment in production...that is why wages have been declining in real terms and production is being moved offshore.
Pfizer trying to leave the US to avoid taxes by: "Activist investor Carl Icahn renewed his calls for corporate tax reform Thursday after Pfizer confirmed it is in deal talks with Ireland-based Allergan." http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/icahn-warns-on-tax-reform-again-amid-pfizer-talks.html
No politician that I know of is talking about pure consumption taxes. Those can be collected and reported by a point of sale terminal. It's much harder to pay a politician to skirt a tax that is programmed into the terminals. Currently it's quite easy, and it's done by hundreds of thousands of individuals and small businesses: donate to a politician and have a complete exemption from income taxes written into any bill crossing said politician's desk. Read the tax law sometimes, it's page after page and book after book of nothing but exemptions from income taxes! Consumption taxes would have to be paid by everybody, corporations included, not to mention criminals, illegals, etc. Currently the only people that can be reliably taxed are those getting a paycheck and they are working two and three jobs to support a public sector with total budgets more than half the GNP.